[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <wihtvodxjc7.fsf@dev-r-vrt-156.mtr.labs.mlnx>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2018 11:29:12 +0300
From: Petr Machata <petrm@...lanox.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>, <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <jiri@...lanox.com>,
<alexander.duyck@...il.com>, <helgaas@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [pull request][net-next 00/10] Mellanox, mlx5 and devlink updates 2018-07-31
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> writes:
> From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
> Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 17:00:47 -0700
>
>> On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 14:52:45 -0700, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
>>> - According to the discussion outcome, we are keeping the congestion control
>>> setting as mlx5 device specific for the current HW generation.
>>
>> I still see queuing and marking based on queue level. You want to add
>> a Qdisc that will mirror your HW's behaviour to offload, if you really
>> believe this is not a subset of RED, why not... But devlink params?
>
> I totally agree, devlink seems like absolutely to wrong level and set
> of interfaces to be doing this stuff.
>
> I will not pull these changes in and I probably should have not
> accepted the DCB changes from the other day and they were sneakily
> leading up to this crap.
Are you talking about the recent additions of DCB helpers
dcb_ieee_getapp_prio_dscp_mask_map() etc.?
If yes, I can assure there were no sneaky intentions at all. I'm at a
loss to understand the relation to mlx5 team's decision to use devlink
for congestion control configuration.
Could you please clarify your remark?
Thanks,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists